mcp_opendaw_list_note_regions

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a read operation. The description adds value by specifying the output fields returned (region_index, unit_index, track_index, position_beats, duration_beats, label, note_count) and the meaning of -1 for both parameters, which goes beyond the annotation. No contradictions with the annotation were found.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the tool's purpose, followed by two concise parameter explanations and a clear list of return fields. Every line contributes useful information with no redundancy or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a straightforward list operation, the description covers the purpose, parameter behavior, and return structure. Since an output schema exists and the tool is simple, there are no significant gaps. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema provides no descriptions for unit_index and track_index (0% coverage), but the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter and the special -1 value indicating 'all'. This is essential semantic information that the schema lacks.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the action ('List all note regions'), the resource ('note regions'), and the key returned attributes ('position, duration, and note count'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_notes and list_audio_regions, which operate on different entities.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides concrete parameter semantics: unit_index and track_index, with -1 meaning 'all'. This gives clear context for invoking the tool correctly. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when to prefer this over list_notes/list_audio_regions, so it misses the higher bar for explicit exclusions or alternative guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.